 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clayton v. Fleming Co.3/21/2000
for meaningful judicial review. The order is supported by competent evidence and will be sustained. Carpenter v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 1966 OK 218, 420 P.2d 911, 912 syl. 2, (Whether a claimant sustained a new injury or a change of condition of a prior injury is a question of fact to be decided by the WCC and the decision will not be disturbed if it is supported by competent evidence.)
III.
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY IN MANDATING A PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN ALL FUTURE "CASES OF THIS SPECIFIC NATURE."
At the conclusion of its opinion, the Court of Civil Appeals expressed a concern that similarly-situated claimants will be faced with piecemeal loss of their claims by being forced to take inconsistent positions in separate cases relating to the causation of a work-related injury . Accordingly, the Court of Civil Appeals fashioned a procedure to be followed "in cases of this specific nature", i.e., cases where an employer resists an accidental injury claim by contending that the injury was incurred during other employment or resulted from a worsening of a previously adjudicated injury for which another employer is liable. The procedure outlined by the Court of Civil Appeals requires the trial court to 1) direct the claimant to file alternative claims or motions to reopen against all potentially liable employers and 2) order the cases consolidated for trial.
We are mindful of the Court of Civil Appeals' concerns about fairness in situations similar to the one presented here. However, the Court of Civil Appeals exceeded its authority in fashioning the procedure it did. The authority to adopt reasonable rules of procedure for effecting the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act is statutorily vested in the Workers' Compensation Court. 85 O.S.Supp.1999, ยง 1.2(E). Once adopted, the rules are submitted to this Court for approval. The Court of Civil Appeals lacks authority to adopt procedural rules to govern the Workers' Compensation Court.
The procedure fashioned by the Court of Civil Appeals went beyond merely establishing new rules. The second requirement imposed upon trial judges in the opinion effectively amends Rule 27 governing consolidation of cases. Rule 27(B) provides the trial judge with discretion to consolidate cases for hearing involving the same claimant upon the request of either party. The second requirement fashioned by the Court of Civil Appeals removes this discretion by requiring the judge to consolidate cases for hearing involving the same claimant, even in the absence of a request from a party. Lacking authority to adopt procedural rules to govern the WCC, the Court of Civil Appeals clearly lacks the power to amend existing rules.
IV.
THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL'S OVERRULING OF CLAIMANT'S MOTION TO REOPEN HIS CASE IN CHIEF WAS NOT REVERSIBLE ERROR.
The Court of Civil Appeals did not consider claimant's preserved and briefed error in the three-judge panel's overruling of his motion to reopen his case in chief. Hence, we will decide the issue.
By his motion to reopen his case in chief, claimant sought to introduce a medical record that he had requested two months before the hearing on temporary benefits and medical expenses, but had not received until three days after the hearing. The medical record, a clinical note prepared by his family physician dated June 24, 1997, noted that claimant did not want his back injury reported for purposes of workers' compensation.
In his brief in chief, claimant argued that the three-judge panel should have granted his motion to reopen the evidentiary record to provide him with an opportunity to present evi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|